TheLeviathan

Again, I'm not giving up on Buxton. He's right there in CF in my blueprint. The talent is obvious, I haven't given up on him. He's abundantly more talented than Florimon of course. None of that changes the fact that his floor is a guy who can't hit. And no matter how good your defense is, it won't keep you on the field if you can't hit. Like me, you sound like you're under no illusions about what the downside is. All I'm pushing back on is what I feel is an unfair counter argument to concerns about him. The concerns are legit and based on significant samples.

This all misses the point. Nick has been insinuating Buxton can be a major league player based on defense alone. I brought up Florimon putting up a 12 WAR defensive effort for the Twins one year as proof that defense alone is not enough. None of us were singing Florimon's praises that year because he has such an awesome dWAR. We were all wondering how the hell we were letting a guy with a .600 OPS play every day. If Buxton can't be more than a .600-.700 OPS player he will have trouble staying in the big leagues. Regardless of what he brings with the glove. That's the point.

I'm not cherry picking when it happens for half a season Nick. I think you've started with a thesis that is flawed and now you're really reaching to defend it. You've said Buxton has made steady progress. That injuries are explaining away his struggles. That anyone who posts about 3 month stretches is cherry picking. It's clear none of us can say anything to get you to take a second look at your "floor" talk. Ok....well, maybe this guy can: I disagree that Nick Nelson has not seen Buxton's floor. Nick Nelson circa 2017 also seems to agree with me.

2018 was not the only time Buxton has been in the .600 OPS range for this team Nick. He gave us nearly 300 ABs in 2017 at .583. So, yes, he has been comparable to Florimon. Worse, even, for significant stretches. It'd be nice if you'd acknowledge that the floor with him is not nearly as high as you keep indicating. And that's a demonstrable fact. As in, hundreds of at-bats/many games, worth of evidence to the contrary. Doesn't make your desire to sign him to an extension wrong, but it's sure as hell a different context than the one you keep suggesting.

It’s not just his style of play though. He comes away from situations with debilitating injuries when others would walk away with nothing. When you make a list of fluke injuries....eventually you should consider dropping “fluke” when your list gets long enough. Having a 11.7 WAR for his defense didn’t keep Pedro Florimon on the field at shortstop. It has kept him floating in and out of a job in baseball. If Buxton can’t hit, that is what his future might look like.

This is not the score I expected to see when I got home.

I prefer Austidillo. By a lot.

I disagree that he has shown "continual" improvement. He was terrible pretty much all of 2016 until September, then came into 2017 with much the same hype he did this year and rewarded that hype with OPS totals of .433, .701, and .524. Then, yes, he had a great July and August before coming down a bit for September. Then he was absolutely awful in ST and the first few weeks of this season and everyone is in a rush to put it 100% on injuries. That is neither continual nor progressive. At best it's intermittent. I'm not giving up on Buxton, I still think he can be an impact player. But he might also be incapable of being a starting caliber player because he either can't stay healthy or can't hit enough to justify regular at-bats. Or both. That is a very real floor and we know that because we've already seen A LOT of it first hand. I can see the rationale behind locking him up, but it'd be nice if we toned down the lipstick on the pig. The downside is very real.

Buxton's defense does not matter if he can't crack a .600 OPS. So citing the WAR stat is misleading in this conversation. No one will deny he's an unbelievable defender. Bringing up WAR only matters if you'd march him out to CF with a .600 OPS (sometimes lower). So....would you? (And please.....600/650 - that's what we're talking here. The vast majority of months Byron Buxton has been a Twin he has spent them with an OPS well below .700)

Right and it's worth saying again - no one here wants to give up on Buxton either.

I wish him all the best in his retirement and thank him for his years of entertainment through his excellent career.

I haven't given up, I'm also not ready to invest long-term. I need to see if this Brittle Buxton continues. And people are right to point out that his floor is not a major league player. We've seen almost 1000 ABs at this point and he hasn't been a major leaguer for all but a hundred or two of them. I get being optimistic and wanting to buy low, but I don't get spinning the downside. It's been dire and injuries are only part of that.

I don't want to argue about what is or isn't outrageous. I don't even know where one would cap that kind of qualification. What I'm interested in is lots of people doing these blueprints. I think your blueprint was fun to read and very interesting. I'm glad you put your thoughts out there to be critiqued now and later. I've done the same. I hope many others do as well. It will create awesome discussions now and in the future. Plus, it prevents those hindsight experts from claiming what a savant they were in July with nothing to show for it now. I also think these provide a lot of creative, awesome ideas for people to chew on. It's with that in mind that I offered that criticism. Much like there are budgets/limits on many other games we play, they exist to help foster creative and strategic thinking. People being able to say "I want a budget at (fill in any number really) because it's "not outrageous" sorta kills a lot of that creativity and intrigue. Think about any board game with a starting budget, or DFS, etc. These budgets exist for entertainment and strategy purposes Hell, if I wanted to say $160M is "not outrageous....I could literally add Bryce Harper to my plan. I guess I'd prefer we stay within the current budget to encourage more creative thinking and less wishful thinking. That isn't to say wishful thinking is a bad thing, it's just a helluva lot less interesting. IMO, it would make this very awesome idea even better for discussion on the site if people didn't go above 120-130M.

I would think that most plans should want to stay below 125M. It makes the exercise more interesting, IMO, when we have to create within a reasonable budget. Going too far outside what is most reasonable to expect does sorta feel like cheating. I’m not saying that o criticize a plan I’m already on record as liking, just pointing out how much value I think the exercise has when we try to stay in the same range. The argument of "there's no reason..." isn't particularly compelling. Especially in light of decades of evidence.

I prefer mine...but I'm good with this,

I don't believe your characterization of your criticisms is at all accurate. So I think that's where the conversation ends.

Your criticisms are too much, too dour, and too soon. Is a bad loss in a poorly played game "progress"? Of course not. And there is room to criticize. Your particular brand of criticism is still several years too soon.

Nope, not progress. They are taking heat and rightfully so, that was a terrible effort.

The defensive coaches are not impressive. Young or not, there is enough talent to show better than this.

And that's fine, I just don't like the logic of "Well X failed, so Y will too" Because you can apply that to trades, FAs, prospects, or virtually anything the FO might do.

I might quibble with the contracts being a bit low, but I would be down for either. Good stuff.

Because they are entirely different human beings? Not a guarantee, but neither is your logic.

What's Ben Revere doing these days?

I'm very skeptical about how many players could do this well. I appreciate trying this in the minors or ST, but once the player is in the majors I am far more skeptical of experimenting.

I'm not trying to trip you up. I just read you taking a stance I can agree with (more flexibility) and taking it a step too far where it starts to butt heads with another item I value (defensive excellence). The idea of sticking outfielders at 3B or 2B very much makes me worry about quality of defensive play. Consider the value a great SS has over even an average one. Two high-end professional athletes, trained and experienced at the same position, but the inferior defender can have serious consequences for your team. Why wouldn't a left-fielder, stuck at 2B, also cause significant problems? Even in small samples? That's where you lose me. I don't want to experiment, in real games, to prepare for low probability scenarios. If I want to create flexibility, I'm using ST or Fall League for that.